HoUinger Corp. 
pH 8.5 



D 651 
.C4 C6 
Copy 1 



WHY CHINA REFUSED 

TO SIGN THE PEACE 

TREATY 



W' 



m 







Published by 

CHINESE PATRIOTIC COMMITTEE 

New York City 

July. 1919 



IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT 



Owing to the absence of Mr. K. P. Wang, the 
Secretary of the Committee, please address all 
communications temporarily to 

MR. Q. K. CHEN 

(Treasurer and Acting Secretary) 

1090 Amsterdam Avenue 

New York City 



n. ef D. 

AUG 25 1919 



;, WHY CHINA REFUSED TO SIGN THE 

^ PEACE TREATY 

China's refusal to sign the Peace Treaty seems 
to have somewhat surprised the whole world. 
Some people may scoff at her action but many 
more have openly admired her stand. The reason 
for China's refusal is very simple. She refused to 
sign the Treaty because she could not recognize 
nor acquiesce in the perpetuation of a crime com- 
mitted by Germany in 1898. China has no objec- 
tion to the Treaty except the unjust Shantung 
clauses which read as follows: 

ARTICLE 156. — Germany renounces, in favor of 
Japan, all her rights, titles and privileges — partic- 
ularly those concerning the territory of Kiao-Chau, 
railways, mines and submarine cables, which she 
acquired in virtue of the treaty concluded by her 
with China on March 6, 1898, and of all other 
arrangements relative to the Province of Shantung. 

All German rights in the Tsing-tao-Tsinan-Fu 
Railway, including its branch lines, together with 
its subsidiary stock of all kinds, stations, shops, 
fixed and rolling stock, mines, plant and material 
for the exploitation of the mines are and remain 
acquired by Japan, together with all rights and 
privileges attaching thereto. . 

The German State submarine cables from Tsing- 
tao to Shanghai and from Tsing-tao to Che Foo, 
with all the rights, privileges and properties at- 
taching thereto, are similarly acquired by Japan, 
free and clear of all charges and incumbrances. 

ARTICLE 157. — The movable and immovable 
property owned by the German State in the terri- 



tory of Kiaochow, as well as the rights that Ger- 
many might claim in consequence of the works or 
improvements made or of the expense incurred by 
her, directly or indirectly, in connection with this 
territory, are and remain acquired by Japan, free 
and clear of all charges and incumbrances. 

ARTICLE 158. — Germany shall hand over to 
Japan within three months from the coming into 
force of the present treaty the archives, registers, 
plans, title deeds and documents of every kind, 
wherever they may be, relating to the administra- 
tion, whether civil, military, financial, judicial or 
other, of the territory of Kiao^Chau. 

Within the same period Germany shall give par- 
ticulars to Japan of all treaties, arrangements or 
agreements relating to the rights, title or privileges 
referred to in the two preceding articles. 

These are the objectionable articles which China 
considers to be unfair and unjust. To understand 
China's position, it will be necessary to review 
the facts of the case. In the year 1898 China was 
forced to grant to Germany the so-called lease of 
Kiao-Chau, and economic rights or concessions in 
the province of Shantung, the Holy Land of China. 
After the World War broke out Japan captured 
Kiao-Chau and seized the economic rights. There 
Japan remains, as she claims, a military occupant. 
On August 14, 1917, China declared war against 
Germany and abrogated all her treaties with Ger- 
many, including those relating to the leased ter- 
ritory and the German economic rights in Shan- 
tung. This declaration of abrogation was officially 
notified to and taken cognizance of by the allied 
and associated powers at war with Germany. As 
a result of this declaration, the territory of Kiao- 



Chau and all the German rights in Shantung have 
automatically reverted to China. 

While the Chinese Delegates were presenting 
China's claims to the Peace conference for the re- 
storation of Kiao-Chau and German rights in Shan- 
tung, Japan suddenly theatened war on China, if 
China should fail ''to make Japan the successor of 
Germany in rights, property, and concessions held 
by Germany at the outbreak of the European War." 
On February lo, 1919 the Japanese minister at 
Peking was instructed by his government to remind 
the Chinese Foreign Minister that "Japan had an 
army of more than a million men idle at home, 
fully equipped with arms and ammunition enough 
to conduct a long war, and to have pointed out 
that Japan had more than half a million tons of 
shipping, with the intimation that this would be 
ready on short notice for active work." Owing to 
the firm stand of the 400,000,000 Chinese people 
the threat of war on China was denied by the 
autocratic Japanese government. 

However, the Council of Three was frightened 
by the intimation that Japan would desert the 
Peace Conference, that she would combine with 
Germany, and possibly Russia, if her demands 
relating to Shantung were not to be complied with. 
On April 30, 1919, they were hypnotized and com- 
pelled to adopt the clauses drafted by Japan, name- 
ly, Articles 156, 157 and 158 of the Treaty without 
any regard to justice and righteousness. These 
unjust articles virtually transfer to Japan the for- 
mer German leased territory and rights in Shan- 
tung which have already reverted to China, the 
rightful owner. The statement of the Chinese 
Delegation at Paris declares : 

It appears clear, then, that the Council has been 
bestowing on Japan the rights not of Germany, but 
of China; not of an enemy, but of an ally. The 

3 



more powerful ally has reaped a benefit at the ex- 
pense, not of the common enemy, but of the weaker 
ally. 

Who can explain to the Chinese people what 
the Peace Conference really means by Justice? It 
has been intimated that the decision of the 
Council in granting Japan's claim was for the pur- 
pose of saving the League of Nations. Here again 
the statement of Chinese Delegation is worthy of 
quoting : 

If the Council has granted the claims of Japan in 
full for the purpose of saving the League of Nations, 
as is intimated to be the case, China has less to com- 
plain of, believing, as she does, that it is a duty to 
make sacrifices for such a noble cause as the League 
of Nations. She cannot, however, refrain from 
wishing that the Council had seen fit, as would be 
far more consonant with the spirit of the League 
now on the eve of formation, to call upon strong 
Japan to forego her claims animated by a desire 
for aggrandi£ement instead of upon weak China to 
surrendet what is hers by right 

The action of the Council provoked a nation-wide 
protest in China. Peace Societies and individuals 
poured in cablegrams and letters by the hundreds 
protesting against the proposed Shantung settle- 
ment and requesting the Peace Conference to re- 
consider the Shantung question with due regard to 
justice. On May 4, the Chinese Delegation lodged 
with the Council a protest against the transfer to 
Japan of the leased territory of Kiao-Chau and 
certain economic rights formerly held by Germany 
in Shantung. Again on May 6, H. E. Lou Tseng- 
tsiang, head of the Chinese Delegation, read to the 
members of the Peace Conference the following 
declaration : 



The Chinese delegation beg to express their 
deep disappointment at the settlement proposed by 
the Council of the Prime Ministers. They also 
feel certain that this disappointment will be shared 
in all its intensity by the Chinese nation. The 
proposed settlement appears to have been made 
without giving due regard to the consideration of 
right, justice and the national security of China- 
consideration which the Chinese delegation em- 
phasized again and again in their hearings before 
the Council of the Prime Ministers against the pro- 
posed settlement, in the hope of having it revised, 
and if such revision cannot be had, they deem it 
their duty to make a reservation on the said clauses 
now. 

Unbiased spectators naturally think that all these 
protests, reasonable as they are, would meet with 
the approval of the Council, or, at least, receive 
proper consideration at the Peace table, and China 
should be allowed to make the reservation she sug- 
gested. But to the surprise of the whole world the 
protests were cast away into the waste basket — a 
strong indication that the Peace Conference was 
hoodwinked and swayed by the wilful few. The 
Chinese Peace Delegation, however, still pinned 
faith to the Peace Conference as is evinced by the 
fact that just three hours before the Versailles 
meeting on June 28 they addressed the following 
correspondence to M. Georges Clemenceau, Presi- 
dent of the Peace Conference: 

Paris, June 28, 19 19. 

H|is Excellency, Georges Clemenceau, 
President of the Peace Conference: 
In proceeding to sign the treaty of peace with 
5 



Germany today, the undersigned, plenipotentiaries 
of the Republic of China, considering as unjust 
Articles 156, 157, and 158, therein, which purport to 
transfer German rights in the Chinese province of 
Shantung to Japan instead of restoring them to 
China, the rightful sovereign over the territory and 
a loyal co-partner in war on the side of the allied 
and associated powers, hereby declared in the name 
and on behalf of their Government, that their sign- 
ing of the treaty is not to be understood as preclud- 
ing China from demanding at a suitable moment 
the reconsideration of the Shantung question, to 
the end that the injustice to China may be rectified 
in the interest of permanent peace in the Far East. 

Lou Tseng Tsiang 
Chenting Thomas Wang. 

In a few minutes M. Dutasta, Secretary of the 
General Peace Conference reported that none of 
the Big Three would consent to allow China to sign 
the Treaty with the above declaration. 

It is seen that the Peace Conference has denied 
to the Chinese Delegates the privilage of making 
any suggestions. Their proposal for revision was 
rejected. Their request for making a reservation 
was turned down. And their plea to make a 
declaration was disregarded. Thus the Chinese 
Delegates had no alternative but to refuse to sign 
the treaty. Mystery still looms over the manner 
in which the Council of Three decided to bestow 
Chinese territory and Chinese rights in Shantung 
upon Japan. It may be that the Council was cajoled 
into accepting the Japanese viewpoint. Or it may 
be that the Council was bulldozed into confirming 
Japan's loot. Whatever may have been the method 
with which Japan approached the leading per- 



sonages at the Conference the Council of Three 
was entirely responsible for the perpetuation of a 
crime which ought to have been rectified in the 
interest of justice and world peace. Japan's suc- 
cess at the Peace Conference smirches the honor 
and dignity of all the nations of the world. The 
subtle methods of Japan have shocked the whole 
civilized world and turned the tide of sentiment 
against Japan more strongly than ever before. 

China's refusal to sign the Treaty without a reser- 
vation or a declaration as to Shantung clauses is a 
protest against injustice as well as an appeal for 
justice. The statement of the Chinese Delegation, 
issued on the evening of June 28, reads in part as 
follows : 

After failing in all earnest attempts at con- 
ciliation, and after seeing every honorable com- 
promise rejected, the Chinese delegation had no 
course open save to adhere to the path of duty to 
their country. 

Rather than accept by their signatures the 
Shantung articles in the treaty against which their 
sense of right and justice militated, they refrained 
from signing the treaty altogether. The Chinese 
plenipotentiaries regret having to take a course 
which appears to mar the solidarity of the allied 
and associated powers, but they are firmly of the 
opinion, however, that responsibility for this rests 
not with themselves, who had no other honorable 
course, but rather with those who, it is felt, unjustly 
and unnecessarily deprived them of the right of 
making a declaration to safeguard against any inter- 
pretation which might preclude China from asking 
for reconsideration of the Shantung question at a 
suitable moment in the future, in the hope that the 



injustice to China might be rectified later in the 
interest of permanent peace in the Far East. 

The Peace Conference having denied China 
justice in the settlement of the Shantung question, 
and having today, in effect, prevented the delegation 
from signing the treaty without sacrificing their 
sense of right, justice, and patriotic duty, the 
Chinese delegates submit their case to the imperial 
judgment of the world. 

Now the case is at the bar of Public Opinion. The 
facts of the case are already apparent. Is it right 
for the Big Three to take away the Chinese terri- 
tory and rights just recovered from Germany and 
give them to Japan? Is it justice for the Big Three 
to deny to the Chinese people affected by this Shan- 
tung settlement the right of self determination? 
Is the Shantung award compatible with the world 
profession for a just and stable peace? 

These are the questions to which the attention 
of the world is called in making its sound, impartial 
and final judgment on the case. 



LIST OF PUBLICATIONS 

1. China vs. Japan, February, 1919. 

2. China's Claims at the Peace Table. March, 19IQ 

3. The Kiao-Chau Settlement. May, 1919. 

4. Might or Right? May, 1919. 

5. Why China Refused to Sign the Peace Treaty. 

July, 1919. 

These publications will be mailed upon application to 
Mr. Q. K. Chen whose address is given on the second page of 
the cover. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

nn. 

T'Sroia 602 2 ♦ 



020 914 602 



*M 



